CHEBROLU LEELA PRASAD RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF A.P. & ORS.

Summary

The Constitution Bench invalidated Andhra Pradesh’s notification reserving all teacher posts in Scheduled Areas for specified local Scheduled Tribes. The Governor’s Fifth Schedule power could not create a new law, amend subordinate service rules, override fundamental rights or conflict with the Presidential local-cadre order. Neither absenteeism nor the asserted classification justified total exclusion of others. Existing appointments were conditionally protected, and the States were directed against repeating the excess.

Issues

1. What powers paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule confers on the Governor.
2. Whether those powers override fundamental rights or the Presidential order under Article 371D.
3. Whether complete reservation could be justified as classification under Article 16(1).
4. Whether continuous residence since 26 January 1950 was a reasonable eligibility condition.
5. What relief should follow invalidation of the notification.

Provisions considered

• Fifth Schedule, paragraph 5(1)–(5), read with Article 244, Constitution of IndiaDistinguished modification or exclusion of legislative Acts under paragraph 5(1) from regulation-making under paragraph 5(2), and required compliance with constitutional limits. (¶¶ 34, 35, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 61, 74, 77, 78, 154)
• Article 371D(1), (2) and (10), Constitution of IndiaHeld that the Governor’s notification could not override or conflict with the Presidential local-cadre order. (¶¶ 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 154)
• Notification and explanation defining local Scheduled Tribe candidate, G.O.Ms. No. 3, dated 10 January 2000, Andhra PradeshInvalidated complete teacher-post reservation and the continuous-residence condition dating to 26 January 1950. (¶¶ 8, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 154)

Held

• Paragraph 5(1) permits the Governor to exclude a particular parliamentary or State legislative Act from Scheduled Areas or apply it with specified exceptions and modifications, including retrospectively. It does not authorise replacing its substance with a new law. Independent regulation-making lies under paragraph 5(2), subject to its prescribed safeguards. (¶¶ 35, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50, 51, 154)
• The paragraph 5(1) power concerns legislative Acts, not subordinate legislation. The service rules made under the proviso to Article 309 could not be amended through that power, and the Acts invoked by this notification did not themselves prescribe the reservation extent. (¶¶ 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 154)
• The Governor’s exercise of power remains subject to fundamental rights and other constitutional limitations. The non-obstante clause does not confer arbitrary authority or immunity from judicial review. The Court reviewed the notification, not the validity of the original Fifth Schedule text. (¶¶ 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 154)
• The Presidential order operated across the State and organised recruitment by local cadres. Total reservation excluded other local candidates while their opportunities elsewhere were restricted. The resulting conflict could not be harmonised; the Governor could not override the Presidential order under Article 371D. (¶¶ 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 154)
• The complete reservation was unconstitutional. The Court applied the 50% rule in Indra Sawhney and found no extraordinary circumstances justifying the impugned measure. Absenteeism and educational development did not justify eliminating opportunities for other local communities, including Scheduled Castes, backward classes and excluded Scheduled Tribes. Distinct constitutional provisions for political representation did not govern teacher recruitment. (¶¶ 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 154)
• The measure was reservation for Scheduled Tribes within Article 16(4), not a separate permissible classification under Article 16(1). It could not evade limits applicable to such reservation by changing its description; even on the asserted classification basis it was arbitrary. (¶¶ 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 154)
• Requiring the candidate or parents to have continuously resided in the area since 26 January 1950 had no rational connection to the objective. It unjustifiably excluded similarly situated tribal residents who settled later and imposed a condition beyond the relevant Presidential local-candidate scheme. (¶¶ 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 154)
• The Court called for appropriate steps to review lists through the constitutionally envisaged mechanisms so benefits could reach the needy. It did not itself revise any list or alter reservation percentages. (¶¶ 149, 150, 151, 152, 153)
• Existing appointees were protected because they were not at fault, expressly conditioned on Andhra Pradesh and Telangana not repeating the excess. The Court directed the States not to exceed reservation limits in future and warned that renewed excess would remove protection of appointments made from 1986 onward. (¶ 154)

Result

Appeals allowed and G.O.Ms. No. 3/2000 quashed. Existing appointments conditionally saved on the stated non-repetition terms. Costs of Rs.5 lakh to be shared equally by Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.